Andrew's poll. Jonathan's response.

[deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)]

Gee, Jonathan (Jon?) I liked your whole post until the very end.  I
was laughing at all the great sarcasm you had showing why the concept
of labelling is basically ridiculous and flawed.  Then I saw:

> Anyone who doesn't think that labelling music for "objectionable" contents
> is censorship doesn't understand what censorship means.
> The real argument is whether or not you're in favor of censorship.
<sigh>  First I'd like to ask, just for the sake of short-circuiting
redundant discussion, whether you followed the whole thread on
censorship that we've just seemingly finished (although it could
crop up again!)  If you haven't, and you're interested in an
opposing point of view, you should go back and read them.  If, on
the other hand, you *did* read the thread, I wonder if you'd like to
explain why you feel that I and the others who said "labelling is not
censorship" are wrong?  I *do* welcome more discussion if it's not
repetitive!
  I won't say any more, except to add one new thing: I just looked up
the definitions of censorship (and censor) in the dictionary, and they're
interesting.  This is the American Heritage Dictionary, which may or
may not be a good one, it belongs to a friend...

   censorship: n. 1. The act or process of censoring. [only relevant
       def., so I looked up "censor"]
   
   censor: n. 1. A person authorized to examine printed or other
       materials and to remove or suppress what he considers
       objectionable.

  Well now.  A few points, both for and against my position.  First of
all, the person must "remove or suppress" to be a censor.  This means
that labelling isn't censorship, but that a store that refuses to
sell labelled records is censoring, as is a parent who will not let
their child buy labelled records.
  I apologize for my earlier assertion that stores refusing to sell
labelled records are not practicing censorship, I was clearly in
error if one trusts the definition in this dictionary (although
Jonathan is wrong too, since simple labelling isn't censorship
according to the definition - the records have not been removed or
suppressed).
  So, I can do one of two things.  I can either question the definition,
saying that that isn't the exact meaning that most people use the word
"censorship" for, or I can so, okay, it's censorship, but the
*important* thing is that stores have the right to do whatever they
wish with their own property, and have no obligation to try to
provide "equal time" to anyone, while government censorship is
using force to dictate what those stores may or may not sell, even
though that should be their own personal (corporate?) choice.
  Anybody care to say whether the feel the definition is a good one?
I should look it up in my Webster's at home, I trust that one more...

-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)